Dr Johan Prinsloo - Homeopath: 2013-07-28

Tuesday, 30 July 2013

Gardasil Destroys Girl’s Ovaries: Research on Ovaries Never Considered

by Heidi Stevenson

One girl’s ovaries were destroyed, with Gardasil the only potential cause. Worse, though, is that Merck either didn’t bother to examine potential effects on ovaries or hid them—but did examine effects on testes.

The BMJ has published the case report of a healthy 16-year-old Australian girl whose womanhood appears to have been stolen by Gardasil vaccinations. She has been thrust into full-fledged menopause, her ovaries irrevocably shut down, before becoming a woman. The authors, Deirdre Therese Little and Harvey Rodrick Grenville Ward1, draw direct attention to the fact that, though the girl has been thoroughly examined and tested, there is no known explanation other than the series of three Gardasil vaccinations she had.

Making matters worse is that there may be many other such cases, but most are likely masked by the routine treatment of irregular or scanty menstruation with oral contraceptives. Indeed, it’s only because this girl refused them that the truth of her situation was unmasked. Just how many other girls have lost their chance at motherhood, but don’t know because their condition is masked?

The authors noted that, although the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) of Australia provides data on the histology of rat testes and epididymides in the Australian Public Assessment Report for Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent Vaccine*, no information is provided for rat ovaries. They sent a Freedom of Information request for “documented rat ovarian histology post-quadrivalent* HPV vaccination that may have been performed by the sponsor and forwarded to the TGA”.

[Related: 213 Women Who Took Gardasil Suffered Permanent Disability ]

*Note: There is only one “quadrivalent HPV Vaccine”. It’s Gardasil.

Here is their report of this highly significant missing data:

It is not known whether this event of premature ovarian failure is linked to the quadrivalent HPV vaccine. More detailed information concerning rat ovarian hist-ology and ongoing fecundity post-HPV vaccination was sought from the Therapeutic Goods Administration
(TGA). Although the TGA’s Australian Public Assessment Report for Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent Vaccine, February 2011, does report on the histology of vaccinated rat testes and epididymides, no histological report has been available for vaccinated rat ovaries.
The TGA subsequently agreed to a freedom of information application in the public interest (FOI 001-1112) requesting documented rat ovarian histology post-quadrivalent HPV vaccination that may have been performed by the sponsor and forwarded to the TGA. However, a histological report of the ovaries of vaccinated rats remained unavailable beyond a numbering of the corpora lutea present at postweaning euthanasia following the first litter.

Why did the manufacturer provide information regarding male rat testes, but not for female rat ovaries? This is more than a little shocking. It’s absolutely damning! We must question the sincerity of both the manufacturer, Merck, and the TGA—not to mention questioning other regulatory agencies, such as the US’s FDA and the UK’s MHRA.

Potential Gardasil Risk to Ovaries

Is it conceivable that Merck didn’t consider the possibility of harm to the ovaries? In point of fact, it’s unreasonable to suggest that they were unaware of potential harm to ovaries. At least one Gardasil ingredient, polysorbate 80 (also called by brand names Tween 80, Alkest, and Canarcel), is a known cause of ovarian deformities, degenerative follicles, hormonal changes, and womb and vaginal changes in rats2,3. Worse, that ovarian damage is known to be caused byinjection of polysorbate 80—just as it’s injected with Gardasil.
Another Gardasil ingredient, L-histidine, a naturally-occurring amino acid, carries signficant risks, too, in the same manner that squalene does. It’s a naturally-occurring substance in the human body, so injecting it could have the effect of causing an autoimmune response to that substance wherever it’s found in the body. There is more on this issue in Gardasil Destroys Girl’s Ovaries: It Should Have Been Predicted.

A large part of one girls’ life has been destroyed, and the only plausible explanation is that the cause is the Gardasil vaccination. This vaccine is sold as a cervical cancer preventative, though it has never been shown to prevent any cancer of any kind. Cancer prevention has never been more than a presumption, based on a possible connection between human papilloma virus and cervical cancer. No cause-and-effect has ever been documented.

[Related: Japan withdraws support for HPV vaccines due to infertility side effects ]

The reports of deaths and debility from Gardasil keep pouring in. As this girl’s plight demonstrates, Gardasil cannot be assumed to be safe. There is highly significant—not to mention suspicious—missing data.

We don’t know, of course, whether Merck calculatedly avoided doing the studies on ovaries or is refusing to release data on such studies because of its damning nature. We do, though, know that the very fact that it’s missing—especially in light of equivalent data on the male reproductive tract being available—must be treated as suspicious.

Certainly, the combination of one girl’s loss of her ovaries, the probability of there being many others, and the utterly callous disregard for its potentially devastating effects, is more than enough reason to remove Gardasil from the market. Surely, it should be removed from governmental lists of mandated vaccines.

This article was published at : http://www.realfarmacy.com/gardasil-destroys-girls-ovaries-research-on-ovaries-never-considered/

Sources:

Premature ovarian failure 3 years after menarche in a 16-year-old girl following human papillomavirus vaccination, BMJ Reports 2012, Deirdre Therese Little, Harvey Rodrick Grenville Ward, doi:10.1136/bcr-2012-006879
Polysorbate 80 Causes Infertility, An Emulsifier That Can Damage Your Reproductive Health
Delayed effects of neonatal exposure to Tween 80 on female reproductive organs in rats. Gajdová M, Jakubovsky J, Války J., Food and Chemical Toxicology, 1993 Mar;31(3):183-90.

Medical Disclaimer
The content of this website is provided for general informational purposes only and is not intended as, nor should it be considered a substitute for, professional medical or health care advice or treatment for any medical or health conditions. Do not use the information on this website for diagnosing or treating any medical or health condition. If you have or suspect you have a medical problem or health issues, promptly consult your professional registered / licensed health care provider.
The information contained in this blog and related website should not be considered complete as it is presented in summary form only and intended to provide broad consumer understanding and knowledge of diet, health, fitness, nutrition, disease, infertility and treatment options.

Dr JPB Prinsloo is the oldest, most established homoeopathic practice in South Africa.
The practice, situated in Pretoria, was established in 1956.
To learn more about homeopathy, homeopathic infertility treatment and the legal requirements for practising as a homeopath, visit:
http://www.biocura.co.za/infertility_homeopathy.html

34 Medical Studies Proving Cannabis Cures Cancer

About the Author

Michael Taillard, professional economist, published author and board member of NORML Nebraska.

This post is courtesy of The Joint Blog. Please give them a visit sometime.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of WakingTimes or its staff.

This article is offered under Creative Commons license. It’s okay to republish it anywhere as long as attribution bio is included and all links remain intact.

~~ Help Waking Times to raise the vibration by sharing this article with the buttons below…
The post 34 Medical Studies Proving Cannabis Cures Cancer appeared first on Waking Times.

Source: Before It's News

Medical Disclaimer
The content of this website is provided for general informational purposes only and is not intended as, nor should it be considered a substitute for, professional medical or health care advice or treatment for any medical or health conditions. Do not use the information on this website for diagnosing or treating any medical or health condition. If you have or suspect you have a medical problem or health issues, promptly consult your professional registered / licensed health care provider.
The information contained in this blog and related website should not be considered complete as it is presented in summary form only and intended to provide broad consumer understanding and knowledge of diet, health, fitness, nutrition, disease and treatment options.

Dr JPB Prinsloo is the oldest, most established homoeopathic practice in South Africa.
The practice, situated in Pretoria, was established in 1956.
To learn more about homeopathy, homeopathic treatment and the legal requirements for practising as a homeopath, visit:
http://www.biocura.co.za/

Sunday, 28 July 2013

The four things that kill a relationship stone dead

PsyBlog

For over 40 years the psychologist Professor John Gottman has been analysing relationships, both good and bad.

He's followed couples across decades in many psychological studies to see what kinds of behaviours predict whether they would stay together in the long-term or were soon destined for the divorce courts.

Amongst the factors he identified, four have stood out, time and time again. When Gottman sees a couple's communication overrun with these, the chances are they will divorce in an average of around six years from their marriage.

1. Criticism

Of course we all complain to each other - married couples more than most - but it's a particular type of corrosive criticism that Gottman identified as being so destructive.

This is when one criticises the other's core being, their personality. For example: "You're late because you don't care about me".

We all make mistakes, but notice that here it's all about how those mistakes are interpreted. At their worst, criticisms have the implication that the other person is bad or wrong at some deeper level.

Repeated criticisms that strike at the heart of the other person's being signal the end of the relationship will be sooner rather than later.

Alternatively: voice the concern and make a request, e.g. "I'm bored, let's have a game of cards." (NOT: "You're ignoring me you selfish @#$%!")

2. Contempt

When someone has contempt for their partner, Gottman found that this was the single greatest predictor of divorce.

Contempt can involve sarcasm, name-calling, mimicking and eye-rolling. Whatever form it takes, contempt makes the other person feel worthless.

(Contempt is also bad for your health, as Gottman found that couples who were contemptuous of each other suffered from more infectious diseases like colds and flu.)

Alternatively: build respect by appreciating the positive, e.g. "Love your taste in music!" (NOT "The sound of your laughter makes me want to vomit.")

3. Defensiveness

A person is too defensive when they are always trying to make excuses for their failures or slip-ups. People do this automatically from time-to-time, but when it becomes a persistent theme in a relationship, this can signal the end.

It's an even worse signal when partners are also trying to score points off the other on top of being defensive. After all, people who live together are supposed to be in partnership, supporting each other. Life is difficult enough without being attacked from within as well as from without.

Alternatively: take your share of the blame and suggest a solution, e.g. "I guess I should have put it on my list, OK let's do it now." (NOT: "No, I didn't pay the gas bill because you forgot to remind me.")

4. Stonewalling

Stonewalling is when a person metaphorically raises the drawbridge and cuts off communication. There are no nods of encouragement to their partner when they speak, no attempt to empathise and no effort to respond or connect. It's like talking to a brick wall.

Stonewalling can often be a result of a prolonged period of criticism, contempt and defensiveness. It may feel like the only response to a worsening situation, but lack of communication will not solve the problems at the heart of the relationship.

Alternatively: speak, move, respond, blink, move a muscle, anything! (NOT: here's my impression of a brick wall.)

Source: http://www.sott.net/article/264414-The-four-things-that-kill-a-relationship-stone-dead?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter